Is it worth the lives?

[lendaddy]

Kach, I am pretty sure you don't actually read my posts.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by kach22i
Lendaddy, just imagine these are the streets your kids have to play in.

If this war is so great and we are doing so much good, move out of Michigan and take your family over there to live.

Thank god the US military is over there trying to stop the bloodbath.

[the]

Originally posted by lendaddy


If a war is wrong because 3,500 men have died, then how can you ever support another military action with unavoidable loss of life?

The war is not wrong because 3,500 US soldiers have died.

It is wrong for a variety of other reasons, including because it was ill-conceived, perhaps based on dishonesty, and not in the US's interests. That's the core of the detractor's argument. If that core is accepted, then even 1 death is too many, in this particular instance.

Again, you state it's a fair approach for one whose position is "I am against all wars."

Is it a fair approach for one whose position is "I am against all (unwarranted/unjustified/unnecessary) wars"?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by the

Again, you state it's a fair approach for one whose position is "I am against all wars."

Is it a fair approach for one whose position is "I am against all (unwarranted/unjustified/unnecessary) wars"?

No it's not. The argument is over the war, is it just, is it right, is it necessary, etc.. To use the the deaths of the soldiers as a tool to make your point is disingenuous as it was a given that soldiers would lose their lives. In other words, would the war suddenly be just, right and necessary if we had no casualties? Of course not.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by the
The war is not wrong because 3,500 US soldiers have died.

It is wrong for a variety of other reasons, including because it was ill-conceived, perhaps based on dishonesty, and not in the US's interests. That's the core of the detractor's argument. If that core is accepted, then even 1 death is too many, in this particular instance.

This I agree with and it actually makes my point. To that person the war was wrong before the first casualty, it's not "more wrong" because of the inevitable loss of life.

The reasons you state ( it was ill-conceived, perhaps based on dishonesty, and not in the US's interests) are exactly what we should be debating outside the emotional blackmail.

[the]

Originally posted by lendaddy
This I agree with and it actually makes my point. To that person the war was wrong before the first casualty, it's not "more wrong" because of the inevitable loss of life.

The reasons you state ( it was ill-conceived, perhaps based on dishonesty, and not in the US's interests) are exactly what we should be debating outside the emotional blackmail.

But you say that to the person who is opposed to ALL wars, casualities ARE a legitimate point to argue.

But why is that so? To that person, the war was also wrong before the first casualty, and is not "more wrong" because of the subsequent inevitable loss of life. Yet you say casualties are a legit argument for them.

I still don't see the distinction between "I am against all wars" and "I am against all (unwarranted/unjustified/unnecessary) wars," and why raising the issue of the casualty count is ok for one but not the other.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Kach, I am pretty sure you don't actually read my posts.

I do read your posts and see that you cannot put yourself in the other guy's shoes. This is why you lack a normal level of empathy.

Imagine these were your streets, imagine if you can.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by the
But you say that to the person who is opposed to ALL wars, causalities ARE a legitimate point to argue.

But why is that so? To that person, the war was also wrong before the first casualty, and is not "more wrong" because of the subsequent inevitable loss of life. Yet you say casualties are a legit argument for them.

I still don't see the distinction between "I am against all wars" and "I am against all (unwarranted/unjustified/unnecessary) wars," and why raising the issue of the casualty count is ok for one but not the other.

Because the casualties are "thee" reason the pacifist is against war in the first place. It's a cornerstone of the philosophy that war is wrong and therefore a genuine argument for them.

The on again off again detractor cannot legitimately claim that casualties are a deal breaker as they will claim that they are regrettable but necessary in the next war. It's completely inconsistent.

And again, the argument over casualties is not one I think should be taboo, just that it should be an honest debate over performance and results rather than an emotional tool.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by kach22i
I do read your posts and see that you cannot put yourself in the other guy's shoes. This is why you lack a normal level of empathy.

Imagine these were your streets, imagine if you can.

It's awful there, it's hell I'm sure....that's war. It's not a lack of empathy, it's a logical rather than emotional approach to the problem. I can feel awful and weep for the soldiers and civilians that lost their lives while logically understanding that it is a cost of war. It sucks beyond sucking.

I could take your post above and say the same thing to a supporter of ANY military action involving casualties.......that's my point. Are you against all war Kach? If not tell me what one you supported and answer the question you gave me above.

There is no answer......cause it's not a real question...get it now?

[kach22i]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I could take your post above and say the same thing to a supporter of ANY military action involving casualties.......that's my point. Are you against all war Kach? If not tell me what one you supported and answer the question you gave me above.

There is no answer......cause it's not a real question...get it now?

1. I was for and still am for going into Afghanistan.

2. I'd be for going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, and long before considering Iraq or Iran.

We laugh when some dumba$$ wins a Darwin Award, feel relief when a loved one passes from a terrible unsolvable medial condition, cheer at the death of a bad/evil guy, and feel sorrow for senseless deaths. What part of this continues to elude you lendaddy?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by kach22i
1. I was for and still am for going into Afghanistan.

2. I'd be for going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden, and long before considering Iraq or Iran.

We laugh when some dumba$$ wins a Darwin Award, feel relief when a loved one passes from a terrible unsolvable medial condition, cheer at the death of a bad/evil guy, and feel sorrow for senseless deaths. What part of this continues to elude you lendaddy?

Who said I didn't think you should feel sorrow? How do you get that from my posts?

But in your words I'll ask you how you can support our presence in Afghanistan since your picture could just as easily been taken there.
"Imagine these were your streets, imagine if you can Kach."

How can you support that Kach?

Asinine huh?

[the]

Originally posted by lendaddy
It's awful there, it's hell I'm sure....that's war. It's not a lack of empathy, it's a logical rather than emotional approach to the problem. I can feel awful and weep for the soldiers and civilians that lost their lives while logically understanding that it is a cost of war.

But that's where I think you are lacking a bit of perspective, or seeing other's perspective.

It's the "cost of war" issue - your last sentence.

It really should read "it is the cost of a necessary war," because that's what it presumes. Because if it's an illegitimate, unnecessary war, it's an illegitimate, unnecessary cost.

From your perpective, the Iraq war always was and continues to be necessary and legitimate, so you accept 3500 deaths as a legitimate cost of war. Assuming that perpective, you are correct, 3500 is a relatively small number in the context of a large scale war.

But when you assume the other perspective, the war is and/or continues to be illegitimate and unnecessary, then 3500 past, and an undetermined number going forward for the unforeseeable future, becomes a bigger issue. For someone holding that perspective, casualties (esp. continuing and future casulties) is a fair issue to raise. Because every single additional life we continue to lose is unnecessary, to the person with this perspective.

[lendaddy]

So Kach, lets say I post a picture of an Afgani child with limbs missing or a US soldier dead there on the streets and say to you:

"Their blood is on your hands, how can you continue to support this war?"

You would say?

[lendaddy]

Kach?

[speeder]

The # of casualties in any situation is absolutely relevent, and the military factors this into any calculations in war games. 10 soldiers dead is not the same as 100 soldiers dead. 1000 civilians killed is not the same as 1200. If you could put a dollar amount on the emotional and physical damage that the death of a son/father/brother/sister causes, (like a trial lawyer would), lets say that the cost is 1 trillion zillion dollars per death. I really think that some people get numb to this from 24 hour cable bad news coverage, but the death of young folks in a war is not the kind of thing that you just get over in your family. Ever. It hangs like a stink cloud over the rest of your life. Each additional death is another family ruined. I could tell you personal stories, but it's not necessary.

The other factor is that our military personnel are assets to the U.S. that are not to be wasted like so much expendable chopped liver. Bush says that he grieves over every dead soldier, but he sure as hell didn't care enough to have a viable plan for this operation or ever admit that it was a fukced-up meat grinder for the last 3+ years. The only honorable thing he could do at this point, IMO, is admit that he is in over his head and cannot manage this war w/o a lot of help from somewhere. He does not deserve to still have any power over human life and death, he's not qualified. The proof is in the pudding.

After the Virginia Tech shooting, I immediately thought that besides the obvious horror and tragedy, he killed 32 smart people who had a lot to contribute to the world. Apparently, he killed one of the pre-eminent MS researchers in the world. I feel the same way about U.S. soldiers, most are good people that would live productive lives. So it's a quality AND quantity situation.

[lendaddy]

Speeder, I agree and I stated earlier that in the realm of measuring success and failure casualties are most certainly relevant. If for instance you feel that given the duration and duty our soldiers have seen, that the casualties are too high due to poor tactics or preparation or supplies, etc.. then that is absolutely a legitimate argument.

[lendaddy]

Morning kach, do you have an answer yet?

[kach22i]

Originally posted by lendaddy
So Kach, lets say I post a picture of an Afgani child with limbs missing or a US soldier dead there on the streets and say to you:

"Their blood is on your hands, how can you continue to support this war?"

You would say?

First off, if presented with such imagery I would have an emotional reaction as well as an intellectual one, and I would not deny it.

Since this is most hypothetical, I would say the use of cluster bombs and mines that caused the child’s loss of limbs to be reprehensible, and would call for their removal from these people’s backyards or as we call it “the battlefield”.

In the case of the dead US soldier, I would morn the loss of one of our best, and call for the best support of his colleagues. This would include the best equipment and body armor available. I would also call for the Afghan government, the Canadians, the French, the Germans and others outside of NATO to do their best to bring this situation under control by providing all the resources they can. I would call for the hunting down the warlords who control the poppy fields and deal with the Taliban to be taken out along with Bin laden. The warlords may control the countryside, but they are not the legitimate government.

Back to work.

[Seahawk]

Cut and paste, but worth reading if you really care at all about the war.

SUBJECT: After Action Report—General Barry R McCaffrey USA (Ret)
VISIT IRAQ AND KUWAIT 9-16 March 2007

1. PURPOSE: This memo provides feedback on my strategic and operational assessment of security operations in both Iraq and Kuwait in support of US Central Command. Look forward to providing lectures to the Faculty Seminar and National Security Seminar during upcoming visit on 4 April 2007

THE PROBLEM:
These are the facts.
Iraq is ripped by a low grade civil war which has worsened to catastrophic levels with as many as 3000 citizens murdered per month. The population is in despair. Life in many of the urban areas is now desperate. A handful of foreign fighters (500+) --- and a couple of thousand Al Qaeda operatives incite open factional struggle through suicide bombings which target Shia holy places and innocent civilians. Thousands of attacks target US Military Forces (2900 IED’s) a month---primarily stand off attacks with IED’s, rockets, mortars, snipers, and mines from both Shia (EFP attacks are a primary casualty producer) ---and Sunni (85% of all attacks---80% of US deaths—16% of Iraqi population.)

Three million Iraqis are internally displaced or have fled the country to Syria and Jordan. The technical and educated elites are going into self-imposed exile---a huge brain drain that imperils the ability to govern. The Maliki government has little credibility among the Shia populations from which it emerged. It is despised by the Sunni as a Persian surrogate. It is believed untrustworthy and incompetent by the Kurds.

There is no function of government that operates effectively across the nation--- not health care, not justice, not education, not transportation, not labor and commerce, not electricity, not oil production. There is no province in the country in which the government has dominance. The government cannot spend its own money effectively. ($7.1 billion sits in New York banks.) No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO, nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi---without heavily armed protection.

The police force is feared as a Shia militia in uniform which is responsible for thousands of extra-judicial killings. There is no effective nation-wide court system. There are in general almost no acceptable Iraqi penal institutions. The population is terrorized by rampant criminal gangs involved in kidnapping, extortion, robbery, rape, massive stealing of public property ---such as electrical lines, oil production material, government transportation, etc. (Saddam released 80,000 criminal prisoners.)

The Iraqi Army is too small, very badly equipped (inadequate light armor, junk Soviet small arms, no artillery, no helicopters to speak of, currently no actual or planned ground attack aircraft of significance, no significant air transport assets (only three C-130’s), no national military logistics system, no national military medical system, etc. The Iraqi Army is also unduly dominated by the Shia, and in many battalions lacks discipline. There is no legal authority to punish Iraqi soldiers or police who desert their comrades. (The desertion/AWOL numbers frequently leave Iraqi Army battalions at 50% strength or less.)

In total, enemy insurgents or armed sectarian militias (SCIRI, JAM, Pesh Merga, AQI, 1920’s Brigade, et. al.) probably exceed 100,000 armed fighters. These non-government armed bands are in some ways more capable of independent operations than the regularly constituted ISF. They do not depend fundamentally on foreign support for their operations. Most of their money, explosives, and leadership are generated inside Iraq. The majority of the Iraqi population (Sunni and Shia) support armed attacks on American forces. Although we have arrested 120,000 insurgents (hold 27,000) and killed some huge number of enemy combatants (perhaps 20,000+) --- the armed insurgents, militias, and Al Qaeda in Iraq without fail apparently re-generate both leadership cadres and foot soldiers. Their sophistication, numbers, and lethality go up--- not down--- as they incur these staggering battle losses.

US domestic support for the war in Iraq has evaporated and will not return. The great majority of the country thinks the war was a mistake. The US Congress now has a central focus on constraining the Administration use of military power in Iraq ---and potentially Iran. The losses of US Army, Marine, and Special Operations Force casualties in Iraq now exceed 27,000 killed and wounded. (Note: The Iraqi Security Forces have suffered more than 49,000 casualties in the last 14 months.) The war costs $9 Billion per month. Stateside US Army and Marine Corps readiness ratings are starting to unravel. Ground combat equipment is shot in both the active and reserve components. Army active and reserve component recruiting has now encountered serious quality and number problems. In many cases we are forced to use US contractors to substitute for required military functions. (128,000 contractors in Iraq---includes more than 2000 armed security personnel.)

Waivers in US Army recruiting standards for: moral turpitude, drug use, medical issues, criminal justice records, and non-high school graduation have gone up significantly. We now are enlisting 42 year old first term soldiers. Our promotion rates for officers and NCOs have skyrocketed to replace departing leaders. There is no longer a national or a theater US Army strategic reserve. (Fortunately, powerful US Naval, Air Force, and nuclear capabilities command huge deterrence credibility.)
We are at the “knee of the curve.” Two million+ troops of the smallest active Army force since WWII have served in the war zone. Some active units have served three, four, or even five combat deployments. We are now routinely extending nearly all combat units in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These combat units are being returned to action in some cases with only 7-12 months of stateside time to re-train and re-equip. The current deployment requirement of 20+ brigades to Iraq and 2+ brigades in Afghanistan is not sustainable.

We will be forced to call up as many as nine National Guard combat brigades for an involuntary second combat tour this coming year. (Dr Chu at DOD has termed this as “no big deal.”) Many believe that this second round of involuntary call-ups will topple the weakened National Guard structure--- which is so central to US domestic security. The National Guard Bureau has argued for a call up of only 12 months instead of 18 months. This misses the point—DOD will without fail be forced to also extend these National Guard brigades in combat at the last minute given the continuation of the current emergency situation.
Iraq’s neighbors are a problem--- not part of the solution (with the exception of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). They provide little positive political or economic support to the Maliki government.
Our allies are leaving to include the courageous and well equipped Brit’s—by January 2008 we will be largely on our own.
In summary, the US Armed Forces are in a position of strategic peril. A disaster in Iraq will in all likelihood result in a widened regional struggle which will endanger America’s strategic interests (oil) in the Mid-east for a generation. We will also produce another generation of soldiers who lack confidence in their American politicians, the media, and their own senior military leadership.

[Seahawk]

More of the Memo:

THE CURRENT SITUATION:
This is the situation.
Since the arrival of General David Petraeus in command of Multi-National Force Iraq--- the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved.
1st: The Maliki government has given the green light to prune out elements of the renegade Sadr organization in Baghdad. More than 600+ rogue leaders have been harvested by US and Iraqi special operations forces with the explicit or tacit consent of the government. Sadr himself has fled to Iran and many of his key leaders have escaped to the safety of the Shia south. His fighting cadres were ordered to go to ground, hide their weapons, take down their check points, stop the terrible ethnic cleansing and terror tactics against the Sunni population, and ignore (not cooperate) with US and ISF forces.

2nd: The US and Iraqi Forces have now dramatically changed their operational scheme. More then 50+ Iraqi Police/Army and US Army Joint Security Stations (JSS) are now being emplaced across the city and extended into the suburbs. The pre-operation planning and rehearsals were superb. The presence of these joint military elements is now becoming ubiquitous across the urban areas. Although many of these small outposts have been attacked—none has yet been seriously jeopardized. The Iraqi people are encouraged ---life is almost immediately springing back in many parts of the city. The murder rate has plummeted. IED attacks on US forces during their formerly vulnerable daily transits from huge US bases on the periphery of Baghdad are down--- since these forces are now permanently based in their operational area.

3rd: The Iraqis have finally committed credible numbers of integrated Police and Army units to the battle of Baghdad. The strength of IA, IP, and NP units has steadily gone up aided by clever monetary and troop leader incentives. The ISF formations are showing increased willingness to aggressively operate against insurgent/militia forces. Although there is continuing political interference by politicians of both the Iraqi Administration and legislators--- this is clearly a serious urban security operation.

4th: There is a real and growing ground swell of Sunni tribal opposition to the Al Qaeda-in-Iraq terror formations. (90% Iraqi.) This counter-Al Qaeda movement in Anbar Province was fostered by brilliant US Marine leadership. There is now unmistakable evidence that the western Sunni tribes are increasingly convinced that they blundered badly by sitting out the political process. They are also keenly aware of the fragility of the continued US military presence that stands between them and a vengeful and overwhelming Shia-Kurdish majority class--- which was brutally treated by Saddam and his cruel regime. There is now active combat between Sunni tribal leadership and AQI terrorists. Of even greater importance, the Sunni tribes are now supplying their young men as drafts for the Iraqi Police. (IP). AQI is responding with customary and sickening violence. Police are beheaded in groups; families of IP officers are murdered (or in one case a 12 year old boy was run over multiple times by a truck in front of his family)—all designed to intimidate the tribes. It is not working. The Takfiri AQI extremism of: no music, no photos, no videos, no cutting of beards, etc does not sit well with the moderate form of Islam practiced among the western tribes. This is a crucial struggle and it is going our way—for now.

5th: The equipment and resources for the Iraqi Security Forces has increased dramatically. The ISF has planned 2007 expenditures of more than $7.3 billion. The Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Interior are the only two of 27 Iraqi Ministries that have executed their budgets at 90% plus satisfactory rates. (General Petraeus is now putting US military liaison officers in ten additional civilian Ministries to jump start their budget process.) PM Maliki has pushed to create a larger security force of more than 100,000 Iraqi Army troops. Thousands (3500) of armored Humvee’s, Cougar and BTR-80 light wheeled armored vehicles (500+) , and other equipment (3500 RPG’s, 1400 heavy machine guns, 900+ mortars, 80+ helicopters) are now flowing into the force. To my great surprise, the Iraqis are using FMS Sales to execute their capital expenditure program with great effect. This includes transition to all US small arms for M4 Carbine and M16A2 rifle. (They will continue to use Soviet type machine guns.) The ISF training system is beginning to work effectively with their own trainers. (However, there are still requirements for the more than 5000+ US military and contract police trainers). The Iraqi training base is cranking out 24,000 soldiers a year from 5 Regional and two national training bases. More than 12 Police Academies are producing 26,000 new police a year. The end goal will be an Iraqi security force of more than 370,000 Police and Army--- organized in 120 battalions.

6th: Reconciliation of the internal warring elements in Iraq will be how we eventually win the war in Iraq---if it happens. There is a very sophisticated and carefully integrated approach by the Iraqi government and Coalition actors to defuse the armed violence from internal enemies and bring people into the political process. There are encouraging signs that the peace and participation message does resonate with many of the more moderate Sunni and Shia warring factions. Of course, there is no intent to negotiate with either the extreme Bathist elements or the Al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists. The UK three star Deputy MNF-I Commander – (LTG Graeme Lamb) has done a superb job with this process.

7th: US Combat forces are simply superb. The Army and Marine brigade, battalion, and company commanders are the most experienced and talented leaders in our history. Re-enlistment rates are simply astonishing. The joint integration of combat power is extremely effective --- but is deemed unremarkable by the involved units. (I found a Marine battalion—with all three of its fighting companies attached from an Army battalion.) These Marine and Army combat units rapidly employ synchronized air and ground combat power, use enormous fire discipline, are compassionate with vulnerable civilians, and move with explosive energy and courage when they pin a target.
The command and control technology, training, contractor support, and flexibility of Marine and Army combat formations are magnificent. Digital data, integrated feed of all live sensors to include persistent “eyes on target” UAV’s, immediate recovery of data in formats that promote decision-making, and enormous technical competence of battle staff personnel are hallmarks of the system. The downside is that at division and brigade level these C3I command posts are not movable. I do not believe that division or brigade commanders have developed, equipped and rehearsed Assault CP teams. They simply are not prepared to effectively fight a war of maneuver. (For example, against the Syrians or Iranians.)
The wariness, adherence to ROE, and discipline of the involved air and ground forces are awe-inspiring. I watched with fascination the attack video of an Apache whose pilots held fire at absolutely the last second ---when what they suspected (correctly) was an innocent farmer appeared in the foreground of a pending Hellfire launch against 5-6 armed insurgents. The pilot painstakingly changed his attack angle--- and sailed the Hellfire over the farmer’s head and successfully nailed the insurgents.
The attention to detail of US Army and Marine units on Entry Control Points (ECP’s) makes me enormously proud as a former combat platoon leader and company commander. Week after week—in unbelievably adverse weather (near freezing to 125 degrees Fahrenheit—the ECP troops man these controlled access areas which require extreme vigilance if their buddies are to be protected. I watched several chilling tapes of the instant death suffered by these brave troops (US or Iraqi) when a suicide bomber actual detonates himself in the position.

8th: The US Tier One special operations capability is simply magic. They are deadly in getting their target—with normally zero collateral damage—and with minimal friendly losses or injuries. Some of these assault elements have done 200-300 takedown operations at platoon level. The comprehensive intelligence system is phenomenal. We need to re-think how we view these forces. They are a national strategic system akin to a B1 bomber. We need to understand that the required investment level in the creation of these forces demands substantial dedicated UAV systems, intelligence, and communications resources. These special operations formations cannot by themselves win the nation’s wars. However, with them we have a tool of enormous and decisive strategic significance which has crucial importance in the global war on terrorists.

9th: The US Armed Forces logistic system is successfully providing 100% of required supplies, services, maintenance, medical support, and material for battle. Never in the history of warfare has a military force been more generously and effectively supported than in Iraq. It is also a house of cards. We need a Joint Logistics command. We need to provide additional resource muscle to create a more robust LOC thru Jordan to Iraq. We are overly dependant on civilian contractors. In extreme danger---they will not fight.
We are overly dependant on Kuwait for logistics. If Iranian military action closed the Persian Gulf—the US combat force in Iraq would immediately begin to suffocate logistically. We cannot depend on a Turkish LOC in the coming five years.
We need 500 USAF C17’s and the tanker fleet required to support them. The Air Force flew 13,000 truck loads of material into Iraq for pinpoint distribution last year. The two USAF Squadrons of C17’s now in-theater make a gigantic contribution.